Not All Calories Are The Same, New Research Finds
Options
Replies
-
Peter Attia wrote a great blog post on that study. Here's a little of what he had to say:
"A few things stand out from these results:
1. The group consuming a very low carbohydrate diet had a higher REE and TEE than the low GI group, which had a higher REE and TEE than the low fat group. In other words, the fewer carbohydrates in the diet, the higher the resting and overall expenditure. This is actually the sine qua non of the alternative hypothesis: something beyond the actual number of calories is playing a role in how the body expends energy.
2. As expected, given that each subject was starting from a weight-reduced state, the REE was lower for each group, relative to their baseline. REE is highly (though clearly not entirely) dependent on body mass.
3. There is enormous variation between subjects by diet type. For example, at least one subject saw a dramatic increase in TEE on the low GI diet versus the other two, while another saw the greatest TEE on the low fat diet. This speaks to a theme I iterate on this blog: be willing to self-experiment until you find what works for you. "
http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation
YES!!! BE YOUR OWN SCIENTIST!!! N=1 AND IT ALWAYS AND THAT IS THE ONE THING THAT WON'T CHANGE.
IMO, I don't believe in calories in, calories out because it's not how the human body treats food - we are made of food and what we eat is more important than how much. Because of good chunk of the fat (fatty acids) and protein (amino acids) doesn't get used as energy. A calorie is a unit of energy and that's it - figured out by burning food - literally. Those fatty and amino acids go towards cellular repair and maintenance, not energy.
And if you have any diabetes in your family, even the healthiest carbs will eventually hurt you. I did the SAD with healthy whole grains and lots of fruit. I dropped some weight but I still suffer from Reactive Hypoglycemia (aka prediabetes). I'm 110lbs and I still suffer from this.
And if you don't have diabetes in your family then a lifetime of the SAD and it's "healthy" whole grains" as the staple will just ensure you fight your weight as you age, dealing with all the "normal" aspects of aging like arthritis (inflammation), cholesterol problems (inflammation), hypertentsion, etc.
Funny. I'm almost 42 years old and while everyone around me deteriorating I'm getting healthier. But then I don't follow the SAD. My body runs best at about 5%-10% carbs. When I keep them around there I don't have to worry about calories or fat. In fact, I have to make sure I eat plenty of fat because my body burns through it like crazy. And I don't exercise a lot.
NOTE: Judging by some of the pics on here I won't be back to this thread. I'm sure I will be attacked and insulted since I don't believe the conventional wisdom. So if anyone is interested in hearing more please PM me.
I am 45 years old and my body works fabulously on a lot more carbs than that.
Plus - cellular repair and maintenance is the use of energy.0 -
NOTE: Judging by some of the pics on here I won't be back to this thread. I'm sure I will be attacked and insulted since I don't believe the conventional wisdom. So if anyone is interested in hearing more please PM me.
Ted and his sheep do not care for you.0 -
The low GI diet that Dr. Ludwig concluded was the best for overall health
No such conclusion was drawn.
If it was, please direct me to it in the original study.0 -
I don't have access to the full study but here's part of an article where Ludwig is quoted:The low GI diet that Dr. Ludwig concluded was the best for overall health
No such conclusion was drawn.
If it was, please direct me to it in the original study.
"The researchers found that compared with the pre-weight loss numbers, the decrease in REE and TEE was greatest in the low-fat diet, followed by the low-glycemic index diet and finally the very low-carbohydrate diet. This means the low-fat diet slowed down metabolism the most. Hormone levels were negatively affected by the low-carbohydrate diet, meaning that inflammation increased and the risk of disease also increased as well.
The overall winner was the low-glycemic diet, which offered both a healthy and an easy way to keep metabolic rates up. To keep a low-glycemic diet, people must eat fiber-rich, natural carbohydrates, proteins and healthy fats, including nuts, avocados or olive oil. Grain products that have a low level of processing are also encouraged, while fruit juice and soda are to be avoided. Sugar can be consumed, but only with a balanced meal and in moderation. Drinking water is encouraged.
"A low-glycemic diet offers a healthy variety without eliminating entire classes of foods - like fat or carbs - so it's naturally more sustainable," Ludwig said in the blog. "This is especially helpful for children, since variety and flexibility make it easier for them to follow."
Ludwig told CTM that since our bodies are used to eating traditional carbohydrates for thousands of years - like steel-cut oats over instant oats - they digest and raise blood sugar levels slower so there isn't a "surge and crash."
"But all of the refined carbs that invaded our diets with the low-fat craze seems to lead to metabolic changes not only making us hungrier, but causing metabolism to fall. And that combination is a recipe for weight gain," Ludwig explained to CTM."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57461950-10391704/low-glycemic-index-diet-may-be-best-at-keeping-off-pounds/0 -
I looked at this study pretty in-depth, the reporting of the study is pretty bad and the writer draws questionable conclusions, but the study itself, while small, is at least decent.
A couple points I remember:
1) This study does not apply to dieting. It applies to maintenence, a fundamentally different process than losing.
2) Protein is not controlled. By now everyone should be aware that to a point a diet high in protein will almost always "outperform" a diet not high in protein. Especially when the dieter is exercising, and super duper expecially when strength training is included as part of that exercise. It is a pretty well established fact that the calorie count used for protein is incorrect for human biology (should be lower).
3) Outliers create the average. If you use mode and not median, the low fat and low GI groups flip.0 -
I don't have access to the full study but here's part of an article where Ludwig is quoted
Fair enough. It wasn't a conclusion of the original study but i guess it can be interpreted that way, especially with selective reporting.
That's why it is always better to read the actual study for yourself with a healthy degree of skepticism.0 -
I would love to see this study taking into account ancestry and family history.
My husband can lose weight on very little protein, doesn't get jittery, he's fine eating tons of carbs. I'm a wreck eating too little protein, I get grumpy and tired. I don't lose weight consistently.
Our family histories are different. His family has been living in cities or on small farms for generations. My family is a bit less far removed from hunter/gatherer type lifestyles. I'm curious if things like that make a difference in our ideal macro's?
I remembered this article and had to look it up again as it sort of relates: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/pima/obesity/obesity.htm0 -
I would love to see this study taking into account ancestry and family history.
My husband can lose weight on very little protein, doesn't get jittery, he's fine eating tons of carbs. I'm a wreck eating too little protein, I get grumpy and tired. I don't lose weight consistently.
Our family histories are different. His family has been living in cities or on small farms for generations. My family is a bit less far removed from hunter/gatherer type lifestyles. I'm curious if things like that make a difference in our ideal macro's?
I remembered this article and had to look it up again as it sort of relates: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/pima/obesity/obesity.htm
I would say that whether or not it's related to genetics or history, you shouldn't ignore behavioral or preferential outcomes of macronutrient intake.0 -
I don't have access to the full study but here's part of an article where Ludwig is quoted:The low GI diet that Dr. Ludwig concluded was the best for overall health
No such conclusion was drawn.
If it was, please direct me to it in the original study.
"The researchers found that compared with the pre-weight loss numbers, the decrease in REE and TEE was greatest in the low-fat diet, followed by the low-glycemic index diet and finally the very low-carbohydrate diet. This means the low-fat diet slowed down metabolism the most. Hormone levels were negatively affected by the low-carbohydrate diet, meaning that inflammation increased and the risk of disease also increased as well.
The overall winner was the low-glycemic diet, which offered both a healthy and an easy way to keep metabolic rates up. To keep a low-glycemic diet, people must eat fiber-rich, natural carbohydrates, proteins and healthy fats, including nuts, avocados or olive oil. Grain products that have a low level of processing are also encouraged, while fruit juice and soda are to be avoided. Sugar can be consumed, but only with a balanced meal and in moderation. Drinking water is encouraged.
"A low-glycemic diet offers a healthy variety without eliminating entire classes of foods - like fat or carbs - so it's naturally more sustainable," Ludwig said in the blog. "This is especially helpful for children, since variety and flexibility make it easier for them to follow."
Ludwig told CTM that since our bodies are used to eating traditional carbohydrates for thousands of years - like steel-cut oats over instant oats - they digest and raise blood sugar levels slower so there isn't a "surge and crash."
"But all of the refined carbs that invaded our diets with the low-fat craze seems to lead to metabolic changes not only making us hungrier, but causing metabolism to fall. And that combination is a recipe for weight gain," Ludwig explained to CTM."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57461950-10391704/low-glycemic-index-diet-may-be-best-at-keeping-off-pounds/
The data does not support that though. Like I said, outliers created the results as interpreted. If you used mode of the dataset (the middle value) instead of median (the average value), the conclusion would be that low fat is better than low GI carb; either way the differences between those groups is tiny, given a larger sample size it is hard to believe that there would be a signficant difference.
The conclusion that a low GI carb diet is better from the data in the study is very, very marginal, if not an outright laughable conclusion.0 -
Shouldn't the low fat and low GI diets have performed the same then since they both were made up of 20% protein?2) Protein is not controlled. By now everyone should be aware that to a point a diet high in protein will almost always "outperform" a diet not high in protein. Especially when the dieter is exercising, and super duper expecially when strength training is included as part of that exercise. It is a pretty well established fact that the calorie count used for protein is incorrect for human biology (should be lower).
Also shouldn't the low carb diets TEE have been much less than what was recorded considering protein was only 10% higher?0 -
The study is based on 21 people? Take any 21 open diaries on MFP and do you own study.
Hmmm, not to compelling conclusions based on sample size,
edited for spelling0 -
I keep wondering when all this debate over all this stuff is going to boil down to people realizing it's common sense. All this garbage aside about low carb/low fat, eat this, don't eat that, timing, intermittent fasting?
Common sense people, just use common sense.
A big plate of leafy greens with tomatoes, red peppers, mushrooms, and other assorted veggies with a couple tablespoons of a flavorful, full fat vinagrette will ALWAYS be healthy, regardless of carb content.
Nearly every food in it's unprocessed state is good for you, I'm not sure what kind of a vendetta Dr. Atkin's had against carrots, maybe he just didn't like them, but none of us got fat from eating too many carrots.
Natural fats are good for you! Take a quick trip back to high school biology and remember your cell memebranes are made up of protein and FAT. We have to consume fats in order for our cells to function properly and in order to process certain vitamins. Olive oil, dairy fat, avocados, nuts and the fat in meats? We need it to survive.
What isn't good for you? Does it come in a box from a factory made from an amalgamation of various chemicals, some of which are unpronounceable? Your body probably doesn't recognize that as food. Does it taste good? Hell yeah it does. Is it good for you? No. The thing that everyone ignores is that when you eat these frankenfoods, you aren't getting the vitamins and minerals your body requires. Sure, you can supplement, but I really believe your body takes a supplement, goes wtf, and gets rid of most of it. That's why you pee most of it out. Plus, if you've ever read the book 'Eat your Colors' there's other chemicals in fruits and vegetables (they dubbed them phytonutrients) that just don't process at all. You can't store them in a pill and take a pill a day. They are only found in healthful, living food. We don't understand every single thing our body needs, so why do we think when we strip everything out of a plant, and just add back what we thought we lost, we are actually getting what we need?
Think back to when you were a kid (this only applies to adults over a certain age I believe). What was the lunch your mom packed for you? If she was like my mom, you got a PBJ (probably on wheat bread), an apple, maybe a cookie, and milk to drink. Did you get a franken food Lunchable with a sugar filled capri sun, and a pure sugar air head treat for dessert? I sure didn't.
I guess the thing that frustrates me most about dieting is that it should be SIMPLE. We have to eat to live, it's one of our most basic processes. That people have taken that basic need and turned it into a multi billion dollar industry kind of sickens me. Most diets don't 'work'. If they did? People would be on them, get what they needed and be done, and the company would get no more money. Instead they make you dependent on them with tricks, or preportioned food, or whatever it is about their products that you need to continue to pay them money to survive. And don't even get me started on the healthcare industry and the fortunes they make off of our fat filled woe's. Conspiracy theorist I am not, but it doesn't seem like American's getting healthy is in the interests of too many corporations.
Idk, I suppose the principals that have worked best for me losing weight have been: Volumize with vegetables (probably the single most important concept I have learned from any program), eat unprocessed as much as humanly possible, avoid fast food at least 90% of the time, move as much as you can, and consume protein and fiber with every meal. Drink lots of water. Avoid soda as it's the devil in any form.
Simple. Common sense. No trickery. Do I follow it as best I should? No. I'm busy. It's hard to cook meals all the time. But when I do manage to make those choices correctly, I feel better, I lose weight and I have more energy. When I don't, it's the exact opposite.0 -
Shouldn't the low fat and low GI diets have performed the same then since they both were made up of 20% protein?2) Protein is not controlled. By now everyone should be aware that to a point a diet high in protein will almost always "outperform" a diet not high in protein. Especially when the dieter is exercising, and super duper expecially when strength training is included as part of that exercise. It is a pretty well established fact that the calorie count used for protein is incorrect for human biology (should be lower).
Also shouldn't the low carb diets TEE have been much less than what was recorded considering protein was only 10% higher?
Protein was 50% higher.
The lack of a lead in phase leaves the results for the low carb diet questionable. The study lacks any discussion on how they dealt with the several pounds of water loss that accompany the start of a low carb diet, if they normalized it at all for the metabolism calculations, and if they did how they did it. Water locked up in glycogen appears via any composition measurement to be lean mass.
And the low fat and low GI diets did perform almost exactly the same. The difference is primairly an outlier. If you average them the low GI diet performed slightly better. If you instead use the middle value, the low fat diet did slightly better. Given the small sample size, the differences were insignificant enough that conclusions shoul dnot have been drawn.0 -
here we go again...0
-
High protein diets have always been shown to be your best route because it does have a higher TEF. That said, why is "eat less, move more" bro science? Isn't that what every single person who loses weight does regardless of macronutriant ratios?
That's what I thought. But there are threads going around on MFP where people begin arguing about "eat more and you will lose weight" vs "it's just cals in vs cals out", then there's the less sodium, more protein, etc, etc. I think I've read so many different takes on how weight loss should happen on this site it's incredible.
Calories in-Calories Out is working wonderfully for me. Forty-four pounds in 19 weeks and body fat percentage is down by twelve percent.0 -
Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree over the data. As for the water they said they accounted for that, dunno:
Shouldn't the low fat and low GI diets have performed the same then since they both were made up of 20% protein?2) Protein is not controlled. By now everyone should be aware that to a point a diet high in protein will almost always "outperform" a diet not high in protein. Especially when the dieter is exercising, and super duper expecially when strength training is included as part of that exercise. It is a pretty well established fact that the calorie count used for protein is incorrect for human biology (should be lower).
Also shouldn't the low carb diets TEE have been much less than what was recorded considering protein was only 10% higher?
Protein was 50% higher.
The lack of a lead in phase leaves the results for the low carb diet questionable. The study lacks any discussion on how they dealt with the several pounds of water loss that accompany the start of a low carb diet, if they normalized it at all for the metabolism calculations, and if they did how they did it. Water locked up in glycogen appears via any composition measurement to be lean mass.
And the low fat and low GI diets did perform almost exactly the same. The difference is primairly an outlier. If you average them the low GI diet performed slightly better. If you instead use the middle value, the low fat diet did slightly better. Given the small sample size, the differences were insignificant enough that conclusions shoul dnot have been drawn.
To the Editor:
Re “In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science” (July 10): Dr. Jules Hirsch states that to lose body fat, one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both, and we agree. Our findings do not conflict with any basic law of physics. Rather, we show that reducing consumption of processed carbohydrate may boost metabolism after weight loss, and this effect might make weight control easier over the long term.
Dr. Hirsch attributes the 300-calorie difference in energy expenditure among diets in our study to changes in body water. However, we measured calorie expenditure using two state-of-the-art methods after fluid shifts had stabilized, and our analytic methods would not be affected by changes in lean body mass. Ultimately, controlled feeding studies of at least 6 to 12 months duration will be needed to answer this fundamental question in nutrition. David Ludwig, M.D.
Cara Ebbeling
Boston
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/science/diet-study-authors-reply-1-letter.html?_r=00 -
Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree over the data. As for the water they said they accounted for that, dunno:
Shouldn't the low fat and low GI diets have performed the same then since they both were made up of 20% protein?2) Protein is not controlled. By now everyone should be aware that to a point a diet high in protein will almost always "outperform" a diet not high in protein. Especially when the dieter is exercising, and super duper expecially when strength training is included as part of that exercise. It is a pretty well established fact that the calorie count used for protein is incorrect for human biology (should be lower).
Also shouldn't the low carb diets TEE have been much less than what was recorded considering protein was only 10% higher?
Protein was 50% higher.
The lack of a lead in phase leaves the results for the low carb diet questionable. The study lacks any discussion on how they dealt with the several pounds of water loss that accompany the start of a low carb diet, if they normalized it at all for the metabolism calculations, and if they did how they did it. Water locked up in glycogen appears via any composition measurement to be lean mass.
And the low fat and low GI diets did perform almost exactly the same. The difference is primairly an outlier. If you average them the low GI diet performed slightly better. If you instead use the middle value, the low fat diet did slightly better. Given the small sample size, the differences were insignificant enough that conclusions shoul dnot have been drawn.
To the Editor:
Re “In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science” (July 10): Dr. Jules Hirsch states that to lose body fat, one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both, and we agree. Our findings do not conflict with any basic law of physics. Rather, we show that reducing consumption of processed carbohydrate may boost metabolism after weight loss, and this effect might make weight control easier over the long term.
Dr. Hirsch attributes the 300-calorie difference in energy expenditure among diets in our study to changes in body water. However, we measured calorie expenditure using two state-of-the-art methods after fluid shifts had stabilized, and our analytic methods would not be affected by changes in lean body mass. Ultimately, controlled feeding studies of at least 6 to 12 months duration will be needed to answer this fundamental question in nutrition. David Ludwig, M.D.
Cara Ebbeling
Boston
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/science/diet-study-authors-reply-1-letter.html?_r=0
http://anthonycolpo.com/finally-a-study-that-proves-a-low-carb-metabolic-advantage-yeah-right/0 -
Calories in-Calories Out is working wonderfully for me. Forty-four pounds in 19 weeks and body fat percentage is down by twelve percent.
Well done!
But please take into consideration that the study addresses the metabolic changes AFTER the weight loss. The statistics on regaining the weight are rather daunting and hence it pays to take evidence-based suggestions rather seriously.0 -
Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree over the data. As for the water they said they accounted for that, dunno:
Shouldn't the low fat and low GI diets have performed the same then since they both were made up of 20% protein?2) Protein is not controlled. By now everyone should be aware that to a point a diet high in protein will almost always "outperform" a diet not high in protein. Especially when the dieter is exercising, and super duper expecially when strength training is included as part of that exercise. It is a pretty well established fact that the calorie count used for protein is incorrect for human biology (should be lower).
Also shouldn't the low carb diets TEE have been much less than what was recorded considering protein was only 10% higher?
Protein was 50% higher.
The lack of a lead in phase leaves the results for the low carb diet questionable. The study lacks any discussion on how they dealt with the several pounds of water loss that accompany the start of a low carb diet, if they normalized it at all for the metabolism calculations, and if they did how they did it. Water locked up in glycogen appears via any composition measurement to be lean mass.
And the low fat and low GI diets did perform almost exactly the same. The difference is primairly an outlier. If you average them the low GI diet performed slightly better. If you instead use the middle value, the low fat diet did slightly better. Given the small sample size, the differences were insignificant enough that conclusions shoul dnot have been drawn.
To the Editor:
Re “In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science” (July 10): Dr. Jules Hirsch states that to lose body fat, one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both, and we agree. Our findings do not conflict with any basic law of physics. Rather, we show that reducing consumption of processed carbohydrate may boost metabolism after weight loss, and this effect might make weight control easier over the long term.
Dr. Hirsch attributes the 300-calorie difference in energy expenditure among diets in our study to changes in body water. However, we measured calorie expenditure using two state-of-the-art methods after fluid shifts had stabilized, and our analytic methods would not be affected by changes in lean body mass. Ultimately, controlled feeding studies of at least 6 to 12 months duration will be needed to answer this fundamental question in nutrition. David Ludwig, M.D.
Cara Ebbeling
Boston
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/science/diet-study-authors-reply-1-letter.html?_r=0
Which part of what he said regarding the data are you disagreeing with? If it's the increase in protein, the pie charts you provided are very clear that the increase in protien intake went from 20% to 30%. That's 10% of total diet increase but a 50% increase from the amount of protein consumed on the 2 that had 20% protein.0 -
Different macros have different thermic effects which, when manipulated to a rather large amount, can impact energy output. Protein is better preservative of LBM and muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Dietary fat can effect hormones. These are all reasons (and there are others) why people who know what they're doing, will often recommend macro changes in addition to total energy changes.
Ok, I understand what you are saying.
So do you feel one pay attention to macros in addition to caloric deficit in order to lose weight?
I think that generally speaking, ignoring macronutrients and ignoring micronutrients is foolish.
However, despite that opinion, weight loss is still driven by energy balance.
If I were to make a sweeping generalization that isn't perfect:
Calories ---> Change in weight.
Macronutrients ----> Change in body composition
Micronutrients ----> Change in health.
There is a little overlap in the above but again, it's a very broad statement.
Here's the deal:
If you ignore macronutrients and just focus on calories, you will likely be hungry and over eat. But at the same time, some people can be satisfied with one ratio of macros while others might be hungry all the time with that same ratio.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions